TRANSPORT FINANCES BILL (Hansard, 23 May 1966)

§ Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)
I seek to detain the Committee for a few minutes. I must first apologise for not being present during the Second Reading debate last week as I was presiding over an agricultural conference in Scotland, but I have read with considerable interest what was said.
I am also in some difficulty because I might find myself inclined to get out of order. As I spend a good deal of time trying to keep hon. Members in order, I am rather conscious of that fact. I hope, Sir Eric, that I shall be able to stay within the bounds of order and that you will allow me a little latitude to say something about the extension of the five-year period by a further year.
Obviously, in wanting to do this the Government must have some plan in mind. The right hon. Lady the Minister 207 of Transport has, I believe, promised a White Paper on the subject. This is hearsay, but I believe that she was heard to say that owing to things which took place the other evening she might not produce the White Paper after all. As that probably was quite unofficial and was perhaps said in the heat of the moment, I cannot believe it to be the intention.
However, I feel a little aggrieved with the right hon. Lady because I have written to her on a number of occasions in the last few months asking for some information about what the Government policy would be and, apart from acknowledgments, I have received no answers to my letters. I do not seek to make a party point, but I think it a pity in a Ministry which knows a great deal about my personal interest in this matter that some steps should not have been taken to answer more fully the very reasoned letters I have sent to the right hon. Lady.
Obviously something of importance is coming. Otherwise, this extension of the period would not be asked for. We should have some explanation from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, in more detail of what is proposed before the Committee is asked to pass this Clause. It is a very important Clause—in effect half the Bill. We should be told in detail what lies behind the reasoning of the Government. The hon. Gentleman and the other Parliamentary Secretary, who is sitting beside him, have a sympathetic interest in those who believe that there is a great future for the British canal system. I ask them to be a little more forthcoming and to tell the Committee what their plans will be.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris)
I am most interested in what the hon. Member has to say, but surely the matters which he seeks to raise at this juncture arise properly on Clause 1 and we are now dealing with Clause 2.

§ The Chairman
As I think the hon. Member recognises, the scope of this Bill is very limited in nature. It seeks to extend for a period of one year the existing immunity of the British Waterways Board from maintenance of certain inland 208 waterways. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to ask the Minister what is the object of the Clause, but it would not be in order to embark on a general discussion about the future of the canal system.

§ Mr. Grant-Ferris
I am much obliged, Sir Eric. I did not intend to do that and I certainly do not intend to trespass beyond the rules of order, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary should say something about the underlying reasons why this period should be extended now. We have not reached the end of the existing period. If we had and the Government were still not quite certain, I could understand that a further year might have to be taken, but we have not yet reached the end of 1967 and, indeed, are not half-way through 1966. Why has the Bill to be extended to 1968 at this stage? I do not understand, unless there is something behind it about which we have not been told. I am glad that the Minister has arrived. She may be able to tell us something about the underlying reasons why she wants to extend the period by one year.
I will not weary the House by repeating what I have said. No doubt she will read it tomorrow. I will content myself by saying that I hope we shall be given some good reasons before we finish the debate which will show what the Government's future policy is likely to be.

§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments in Committee because on Second Reading last week I asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for certain clear categorical assurances on Clause 2. Although he sat down at four minutes to 10 p.m.——

§ Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
It was two minutes.

§ Mr. Wells
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) rose a moment later and said that he had been seeking to address you. Sir Eric, for four minutes.

§ Mr. Manuel
He was wrong again. He is always wrong.

§ Mr. Wells
The point is that the Parliamentary Secretary had time last week to answer the few points which I made 209 I made the only speech on Second Reading clearly directed at Clause 2 and Clause 2 alone. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be kind enough to answer those questions when he winds up this debate.
As the Committee recalls, when the original Bill was discussed in 1962 the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) set out in Standing Committee E, on 6th March, 1962, certain views on this point. As reported in column 1129 he said, The position at the end of five years will be exactly the same. No loan or grant can be made to the Authority for any revenue deficit which may be incurred. In those circumstances, it is puzzling that there should be this discrepancy between the provisions for the Board and for the Authority. Although the Clause does not say so, I can only assume that the Government anticipate that the Authority will not be properly revenue-earning at the end of five years and that there will be further legislation to allow the Government to continue its deficits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th March, 1962; c. 1129.] That is what the Parliamentary Secretary's hon. Friend said in Committee four years ago. The point is that by Clause 2 the Government seek to extend for one further year the blanket cover to the Inland Waterways Board, the protection which they have enjoyed under the 1962 Act. It is this protection which they are given by Section 64 and which protects them further under Clause 2, because, as I complained on Second Reading last week, it is Clause 2 which enables them to go on in this wishy-washy way. We simply require some information. Are the Government going to bring in their White Paper in the very near future? I had hoped from the nods and wreathed smiles of the Parliamentary Secretary last week that we were going to enjoy the White Paper before tonight. Will the White Paper set out clearly and in plain terms whether or not the Government support the principle of a trust? We want to know where we stand.
I asked in my Second Reading speech if we could have the White Paper before the Committee stage so that we would have been in a position to put down Amendments if we were dissatisfied with the proposals in the White Paper. As it has not been forthcoming, we are in a very great difficulty. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something. I hope he will be able to 210 say that, even if the Government cannot support the principle of a trust, at least this further sum of £350,000, which he and the Minister are well aware is required each year, will be forthcoming. As I said last week, it is important to so many people who are involved——

§ Mr. John Morris
On a point of order, Sir Eric. With respect, I submit that the hon. Gentleman is not in order in relating his remarks to the financial provisions.

§ The Chairman
I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Member saying. I hope he will not find it necessary to put his questions any more. I think that if he went any further he would be out of order.

§ Mr. Wells
I am grateful, Sir Eric. I am not, as the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be aware, referring to the financial provisions of the Bill. I am referring to the underlying spirit of Clause 2, to what the Clause does to protect the Board, and the fact that there is this financial requirement for the future. Clause 2, which we are debating, protects the Government and the Board. The Government have got to legislate in the very near future. This is why I quoted the speech of the hon. Member for Craigton. I could have gone on for 10 more columns of HANSARD, but I spared the Committee that. It it all there and if the Paraliamentary Secretary doubts it I shall launch forth.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member would be out of order if he were to launch forth.

§ Mr. Wells
I am grateful to you, Sir Eric. The fact remains that I hope we shall have an answer to the questions that I have put to the Parliamentary Secretary.
If I may make one final point, as I said last week, there is not only this vast number of private people who enjoy using the waterways and are involved in investment therein. There is also the Rural Industries Loan Fund which has put out a considerable sum of money ——

§ The Chairman
There is nothing whatever in this Clause to which the Loan Fund has any relevance at all.

§ Mr. Wells
Sir Eric, with the greatest respect, I am afraid that you cannot be aware of the precise nature in which the 211 Rural Industries Loan Fund has set out its money. In 1964——

§ The Chairman
I may not be aware of that, but I am aware of the scope of this Clause. This Clause merely extends the immunity of the British Waterways Board for a further period of 12 months.

§ Mr. Wells
I am grateful to you, Sir Eric. The immunity which this Clause extends to the British Waterways Board enables that Board to carry on leaving many people who operate canalside businesses in a further state of uncertainty for a further 12 months. What my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and many other hon. Members want to know is where do these people who operate canalside businesses stand? Not only are these people worried, but the Rural Industries Loan Fund——

§ The Chairman
If the hon. Member will look at Section 64 of the 1962 Act which is being extended by Clause 2 of this Bill, he will see that it is limited to giving an immunity to the British Waterways Board against rights relating to navigation. It is limited to that.

§ Mr. Wells
I apologise, Sir Eric, but the point remains that it is this immunity which the Board now enjoys which enables it to continue what many people who take great interest in the canals would view as malpractice. If the Clause is not passed extending the immunity for a further year, there will be many cases of complaint coming before the courts.
Not only is there private uncertainty but there is also uncertainty for a Government Department, and it is this uncertainty that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
There are several inland waterways in my constituency. Many people are concerned about the future of our inland waterways. I shall keep in order on the Clause, Sir Eric, and I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. This is not a party matter. It is a matter which affects all hon. Members. I well remember how one of my political opponents, Mr. Jack Jones, who was Member for Rotherham, a man for whom I had enormous respect, always tried to catch the eye of the Chair whenever we had a 212 debate on this subject because he was passionately interested in what happened to inland waterways.
I do not criticise the Government for wanting to have this extension of immunity until 1968, but I must remind all hon. Members that we are asked to sanction the allocation of £350 million or £360 million under the Bill, and, once we have done it, we shall as a House have far less power over the Executive than we should have if we did not pass the Bill. If the Minister next week produces a White Paper containing proposals affecting inland waterways with which the House would disagree, our position will be far weaker if we have already voted the money.

§ The Chairman
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing whatever in Clause 2 about voting money.

§ Sir D. Glover
I accept that, Sir Eric, and I said that I would try to keep in order. It is a narrow point. The fact is that we are asked to vote money under the Bill, though not under Clause 2.

§ The Chairman
Order. We are not dealing with the Bill. We are dealing with Clause 2, which has nothing to do with the voting of money.

§ Sir D. Glover
But, with the greatest respect, Sir Eric, a Bill runs through even the Committee stage, and there are implications flowing from Clause 2. What is in the Government's mind? As I say, I do not regard this as a party matter, but the right hon. Lady is to bring forward proposals affecting inland waterways quite soon. We ought to have those proposals before us before we pass Clause 2, because we do not know why she wants this delay. The reason may be controversial or it may be accepted by all of us. We may congratulate the right hon. Lady on the wisdom of her proposals, but at the moment we are being asked to accept a year's delay when we do not know what her proposals for inland waterways are.
Almost every hon. Member has an inland waterway in his constituency. There is growing interest in inland waterways for navigation, for boating, for fishing, and so on. The Committee has a right to know what the right hon. Lady has in mind before we pass Clause 2.

§ Mr. Grant-Ferris
On a point of order, Sir Eric. May I ask for your guidance? Could you tell me whether it is proposed to take the Third Reading of the Bill tonight? It is not on the Order Paper, but I was wondering whether you would take it, and, if so, whether we could raise the matter in more detail then.

§ The Chairman
That is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. John Morris.

§ Mr. Grant-Ferris
Further to the point of order, Sir Eric. If the Third Reading of the Bill is moved——

§ The Chairman
Order. At the moment we are in Committee, discussing the Committee stage of a Bill, and it is quite inappropriate and out of order for an hon. Member to ask the Chairman of the Committee what is going to happen about the Third Reading of a Bill.

§ Mr. John Morris
The present legislation runs out in 1967, and the object of the Clause is simply to preserve the status quo pending the working out of a comprehensive future policy for the waterways in the light of the Board's report giving facts about the waterways which are known to hon. Members. This will undoubtedly involve legislation which it will not be practicable to introduce until the 1967-68 Session.

§ Mr. Grant-Ferris
I protest against the taking of the Third Reading of the Bill tonight when we have not had a proper explanation from the Government as to what their policy is. I will not weary the House at this late stage by going into a great many reasons why we should vote against the Third Reading, but I suggest to my hon. Friends that if the Third Reading is proceeded with now we should divide against it.

§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
I very much regret that when the almost cursory discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill took place on Friday I was not able to take part, though I was present during most of the Second Reading debate.
I echo some of the discontent and concern then expressed by my hon. Friends about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) once described the policy of the Labour Party as being a menu without prices. Now the Government have gone a great deal further than that. They are asking us to pay the bill without even showing us a menu, and in doing so they are treating the House with contempt.
I do not want to weary the House by repeating for the Minister the speech which she made on Second Reading, but I invite the attention of the House to the very scant mention which she made on that occasion of the financial significance of the Bill. We are asked to vote between £300 and £400 million of public money to finance a policy the details of which we have not yet been told. I remind the House of the right hon. Lady's words on Second Reading: That is why I have to ask the House, first, that the period during which revenue deficit grants can be made should be extended for another year, that is, to December, 1968, and, second, for an additional sum of £350 million to be provided—enough this time to cover all possible contingencies … by voting this sum, we are not assuming that it will be spent. On the contrary, I hope that, and I know that the whole House hopes, that British Railways will be able to do with much less. If there is any foundation for her hopes that this vast sum will be more than sufficient, she should let us into her confidence and tell what it is. The right hon. Lady went on to wave away the difficulties with which she is facing the House and added: … it is extremely difficult to budget with certainty as to what it will need to discharge that obligation. … The House is entitled to hear a great deal more than it has done. If the right hon. Lady is to justify the whole of her programme on the need to provide what she describes as socially essential purposes, then, while we would not take exception to such purposes, we are 215 entitled to some definition from her as to what she regards as "socially essential purposes. I do not want to go into detail about the possibly nightmare Committee she is putting in charge of London Transport matters, although we await what it will do with a good deal of apprehension, but in referring to the target set the London Transport Board by the Conservative Government, she said: That represented a net return of about 5 per cent. on average net assets, after depreciation but before interest. That was to be the minimum return which the Board was to produce. In practice, the target has proved impossible to reach. Does the right hon. Lady really think that a target of 5 per cent. on net assets before depreciation is too steep for a nationalised industry to achieve? Again and again, there is the classic instance of the House being faced with a huge demand from a nationalised industry which, by the confession of those who staunchly advocate public ownership, is quite unable to earn even this modest target.
I have only one more quotation from the right hon. Lady's Second Reading speech: I have described the scope of the Bill. That is a euphemism. I suggest that it represents the absolute minimum that is required so that the necessary finance will be available for the three Boards in question in the period to the end of 1968. …;"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1355-63.] Without being discourteous to her, I think that that is the last thing she did. She never really gave us any information on which we could possibly proceed to vote this huge sum of money, unless, of course, she is treating, as Governments are wont to treat only too often, the House of Commons as a mere rubber stamp. Recently the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made rather a long speech about conveniences. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not treat the House in such a way.
I hope that she will give her attention to the White Paper Command 2974, Loans from the Consolidated Fund, because I want to ask her to what extent, if at all, the Bill alters the calculations in the White Paper 216 in respect of the Railways Board and the London Transport Board. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady or the Parliamentary Secretary has a copy of the White Paper, but I will gladly lend mine if not. Paragraph 10 on page 10 says that the Railways Board requires a total capital of £116 million during the financial year 1966-67, of which £94 million is to be financed out of internal resources and £20 million from Exchequer borrowing and £2 million from other sources. Does the Bill in any way alter the facts which were put before the House in that White Paper?
The following paragraph deals with the London Transport Board and I call the right hon. Lady's attention to it because it reveals a somewhat odd situation. We are told that the total capital requirements of the Board will be £29.2 million for the year of which from internal resources will be provided minus £700,000, the total capital requirements being £29.2 million and the total borrowing £30.1 million. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to explain how that comes about.
I turn now to some of the arguments deployed very properly during our debates on the Bill. One of the main things concerning hon. Members on this side of the House is that, without any checks and without even the minimum of information, we are here embarked on a course which clearly involves a massive subsidy to nationalised industries and we have been told nothing to justify it and been given no details whatever.
Ministers must face the fact that these nationalised industries make very heavy demands upon our limited resources and in these circumstances they must accept that a certain scrutiny of these demands by the House of Commons is not only right but necessary. I have been rather surprised by the cursory manner in which the Minister has treated the House during these debates. On Second Reading she spent a good deal of her time chiding the Conservative Government with what she regarded as their faults. If she expects us to listen to that kind of thing, in return she has to listen, or at least go through the appearance of listening, to arguments which to us seem a great deal more serious, and at the moment she is giving me the impression that she is not in any way concerned 217 with anything which can be said from this side of the House. That is always an unwise attitude for Ministers to take, because sooner or later their utter disregard of arguments which to us appear to be in the national interest catches up with them.
We believe that the sort of scrutiny which we have been denied on this occasion is very important. I should like immediately to be assured that when this White Paper reaches us, the Government will afford a full opportunity for debating in detail the policy which we are now financing and are apparently to finance without knowing any details whatever.
One of the points which, I believe, the Government have entirely failed to understand is that when they advocate the public ownership of an industry so that it can be controlled by the State, what happens is that the Government do not get control of the industry. The industry gets control of the Government. The industry has really got the Government fairly and squarely where it wants it and is free to make any possible demands upon them.
We on this side are almost always rebuked if we question the need for merely pumping out further public funds instead of looking, as we are entitled to do. for at least an effort to increase efficiency. The test for which the general public look is reliability of service. Under that heading come such things as punctuality, comfort, cleanliness and the rest and, in the case of goods, safe arrival.
I do not wish in any way to embarrass those who have the difficult task of managing the railways. Nevertheless it is, unfortunately, a fact that freight deliveries are not as reliable as they should be. A great many systematic losses ate caused by pilfering of an organised kind. These are matters upon which the future of the railways depends and which certainly should be fully discussed before the Government come to the House of Commons and ask for an enormous sum such as this to be given to them without more ado.
I believe that we have had from the transport unions far more good intentions than deeds. There is no clearer example of this than the liner trains, a problem which was referred to in Committee last week. My hon. Friend the Member for 218 Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) raised this point effectively and successfully but without, apparently, disturbing the Minister's complacency. The Minister herself said: That is my policy, and I am pursuing it. I am pursing it successfully, and I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite drop their wrecking tactics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1966: Vol. 728, c. 1835.] What the right hon. Lady hailed as this move forward on liner trains amounts to is that the National Union of Railwaymen is dictating terms to railway management. [Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who will speak on behalf of the Opposition, will have been impressed —or, perhaps, oppressed—by the fact that the Minister is simply here out of a sense of duty to the House——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill.

§ Mr. Peyton
I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I have gone too far. What I hoped very ambitiously to do was to attract the right hon. Lady's attention to the debate on the Bill. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Peyton
The point surely is that the National Union of Railwaymen, in a matter to which Dr. Beeching at least attached enormous importance, is seeking to dictate the terms upon which liner trains should be used. Together with my hon. Friends, I think that this is wholly wrong. The right hon. Lady was given a chance to reply to this point and she has failed to do so.—Perhaps I could refer to the words of my hon Friend the Member for Worcester, who said on 20th May—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Interruptions do not shorten speeches.

§ Mr. Peyton
I am exceedingly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having given such a necessary lesson, with more brevity than I could have done. I was referring, when I was rudely interrupted, to the words of my hon. Friend. He attempted to tell the right hon. Lady where her duty lay. He said that she: … should have had the courage to stand at the Dispatch Box and say to the N.U.R. 'You are imposing a most restrictive practice. You are keeping freight away from the railways. You are stopping the advance of the 219 whole liner train programme. You are asking for an extension of public ownership of vehicles which is unnecessary and unreasonable.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1836.] I am glad that my hon. Friend made this point with such force, and sorry that his eloquence and efforts were wholly unsuccessful in extracting a reply from the Government. Where do the Government stand on this? Are they condoning the restrictive practices operated within this valuable scheme? Are the Government backing the N.U.R. in restricting what could be a tremendously valuable asset to the railways?
It appears to us that the Minister gleefully accepted this restricting attitude of the N.U.R. All that she could do was to accuse the Opposition of wrecking tactics. I agree with what my hon. Friend said on that occasion and I am sorry that the Government were unable to reply to his argument.
I want to turn to London Transport, which is plainly an organisation of immense importance to this vast capital city. Yet what do we see? There have been virtually no changes, except for the provision of larger and larger buses. Very little thought is given to the convenience of the travelling public. I have always been astounded that no one has tried to work out a system which divorces the transport of the centre of London from that on the periphery. As long as we have this present system, the blocks which occur on the periphery are communicated and added to in the middle, and all of this has a cumulative effect.
The time has come when these nationalised industries——

§ Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)
The time came half an hour ago.

§ Mr. Peyton
The hon. Gentleman is gaily reminding me that the time came half an hour ago. Time for what? When the hon. Gentleman has been here a little longer he will realise that interventions are the last way in which to shorten debates.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me, I will be back to the subject of London Transport and the nationalised industries in general.
220 In the past, I have had discussions with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary which were not unfriendly. On this occasion, I want to say to him that we on this side deplore the practice, which so often repeats itself, of a nationalised industry coming for more money without being forced, as a privately-owned industry would be, to look inside itself for increased efficiency and to find from its own resources a greater contribution to its capital requirements.
We voted against the Bill on Second Reading, in my opinion rightly. I hope very much that my hon. Friends may consider doing so again tonight, unless we get some answers which are much more satisfactory. [Interruption. I recollect that, 10 years or so ago, even the tiniest interruption from Government benches provoked a great tirade of speeches from this side. We have not had all that amount of practice yet. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, including those on the Treasury bench and particularly Parliamentary Secretaries from the Ministry involved, care to make these kinds of interventions, they must blame themselves for the reactions which, inevitably and increasingly, will come from this side.
I am arguing a serious point, and I am not in the least concerned with whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agrees with it or not. If the nationalised industries require enormous sums of money from the national resources, as they do, they must justify it. In the course of justification, they must be able to show that they have done their utmost to increase their efficiency. We, for out part, have our doubts multiplied when we see unnecessary, foolish and artificial restrictions imposed upon quite hopeful means of improving the status and results of those industries.
I will not detain the House any longer—[Interruption. I am sorry; I was not allowed to finish that sentence. I was about to say that I will not go on any longer, unless I am challenged to do so. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are so interested in our views, I will be very glad to continue, if not on this occasion, upon many others in the future.
Meanwhile, I hope that I may ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, without being unduly optimistic, if he will answer some of the questions that I have put to him.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
I wish to make a very short speech, and it is very unfortunate that, in saying the few words that I want to say, I have to detain so many hon. Members opposite. It is even more unfortunate that, owing to the lateness of the hour, many hon. Gentlemen opposite who could make quite good contributions are prevented from doing so, if only because of their concern for their fellow hon. Members.
I looked reasonably favourably upon the Bill on Second Reading. It seemed as though only an additional sum of money was required and additional time before the question of the deficits was considered. I was concerned to read in the report of Friday's debate the various explanations given as justification for the Bill. In the light of those explanations, I hope that the Bill will not receive a Third Reading.
One explanation that we had from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was that the Bill was required as a stop-gap. His actual words were: … we must have stop-gap legislation of this type to ensure that British Railways and the other industries have money with which to carry out their existing statutory requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1757.] In other words, it seemed as though the sum of £350 million and the right to have a deficit going on until December, 1968, was being asked for as a stop-gap measure. I suggest, with respect, that when we are authorising sums of this nature and giving the British Railways Board what amounts to a free hand until December, 1968, we are doing more than simply approving a stop-gap measure. I feel that we should be particularly careful when dealing with a Bill of this sort which concerns a nationalised industry when we do not have the normal controls which this House has over other forms of expenditure.
I accept that with a nationalised industry we must have a certain amount of administrative freedom, but, on the other hand, when we are approving the expenditure of large sums of money, I think that we should take steps to find out what the Board's policy will be. We know that general policy decisions have to be made by the Government. The Government have given a few indications 222 of what their policy will be, but these indications are inadequate. We have no clear indication of their policy, and those indications that we have had are not very satisfactory.
The only general indication that we have had is the Minister's statement, and statements from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Labour Party, and British Railways under a Labour Government. will be concerned with providing an integrated transport policy. This has been said many times, but I do not know precisely what this means.
The other indication that we have had is that the Government, and the British Railways Board under this Bill, will be concerned with maintaining socially essential services. Here again we have had no indication of precisely what this means. As we are being asked to provide this large sum of money, and to give the Board a free hand until December 1968, I think that the time has come for us to be given a clear statement of policy.
We have been promised a White Paper. I think that the right course would have been to bring in a stop-gap Bill to provide a few million £s to tide British Railways over the next few months until the White Paper was published, because I think that it is wrong of the Government to ask us to authorise the expenditure of this substantial sum of money without giving us a clear statement of policy.
We cannot expect, tonight, to be told the policy which will be outlined in the White Paper, but there are one or two questions, which the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might care to answer, which arise out of the statements they have made during the passage of this Bill through the House both on Second Reading and in Committee.
Will a substantial proportion of this money be used to provide a major extention of British Railways road haulage fleet? I think we all know that there will be an extension of it. Both the previous Labour Government and this one have accepted that there must be some expansion of British Railways road haulage fleet, but what we want to know is how far that extension will go, and for what purpose. Is it the Government's intention to expand the road haulage fleet to such an extent that there will be 223 no need for private road hauliers in the liner train depots? This is a vital issue, and I think that we must have a clear statement on whether the money being provided by this Bill will be used for this purpose. Is this one of the changes in policy——

§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I should like your advice. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with a situation in which he envisages the expansion of British Railways road services. The Bill deals entirely with revenue expenditure. The point which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with would involve capital expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has not the sense to know that. Would you tell him so?

§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)
Further to that point of order. Any capital expenditure on motor vehicles affects revenue account because of depreciation.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Member must leave it to the Chair to keep Members to order.

§ Mr. Taylor
I assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that I am getting through this as quickly as possible. I have no wish to detain the House, but I have not previously spoken on this Bill.

§ Mr. Manuel
The hon. Gentleman has not been here all the time.

§ Mr. Taylor
I did not take part in the Second Reading debate, and I did not speak once during the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman is a conscientious Member and he attends here regularly, but on this Bill I have been here as regularly as he has and I have read the relevant documents with great care. I maintain that we need a clear statement of the Government's intentions with regard to the liner train depots. We know that the Government intend to expand the British Railways road haulage fleet, but what we do not know is to what extent and for what purpose. Is it the Government's intention merely that British Railways should have a larger share of the traffic coming into the liner train depots, or is there to be a total lock-out of private hauliers?
The indication we had on Friday was a rather alarming one. It looked as 224 though the difference between the needs of British Railways road haulage and what was required by the customers would be made up by private transport hired specifically for the purpose by British Railways road haulage. If so, it would appear that the Government are aiming at a monopoly of road haulage facilities for liner trains by British Railways. Whether this is right or wrong is not a matter for this debate, but we are entitled to have a precise indication of the Government's policy in this matter.
We have had guidance from previous debates. The right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser)—I greatly admired him for the speeches he made on transport—was clear and specific in his view of this problem, but the right hon. Lady has not given such a clear indication. It may be that she feels that to give some indication might prejudice negotiations, but the indications she has given show a change of policy, and this is not something that hon. Members on this side of the House accept.
There are two other small points. Can we have an indication from the Government whether they are in favour of a technically developing or a stagnant railway service, and whether they are thinking in terms of new transport on rails, including monorails, for the future, or are not thinking about it at all? Have they made any studies about the feasibility——

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not in order in a Third Reading debate.

§ Mr. Taylor
I did not intend to go beyond the rules of order. But have any technical advances been made? Are the Government thinking of new forms of rail transport? I hope that the Government will answer the specific points that I have made.

§ Mr. John Wells
I am glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, this evening, because I have sought to direct my remarks throughout all the stages of this Bill entirely to Clause 2. I very much deplore the lack of manners shown by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he had two, four or however many minutes it was last Wednesday but did not seek to use them to say anything about the inland waterways provisions. When we debated 225 Clause 2 earlier this evening in Committee I had virtually no answer from the Minister herself, who appeared to be asleep throughout. No doubt I was very boring. [Interruption.] Her eyes were shut. It seemed to me that she was asleep.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a Third Reading debate. We are not discussing the right hon. Lady's eyes.

§ Mr. Wells
My point is simply that it is a disgrace that the Treasury Bench and their supporters, who have many constituents and many friends—just as we do on this side of the House—among people who are interested in the inland waterways, should seek to give no answer on this most important point. The friends of the inland waterways want to have the uncertainty cleared up once and for all. Last week I asked the right hon. Lady categorically whether she or the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what proposals were contained in the White Paper in respect of waterways. It is no good the right hon. Lady yawning and going to sleep again. What we want is an answer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Manners."] I suggest to the hon. Member whose name and constituency I forget, but who is wearing spectacles and is going a little bald, that when he asks me to exert manners he should know that the right hon. Lady should not yawn, because there are many people——

§ Mr. Speaker
On the Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will keep to that.

§ Mr. Wells
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but this is what astounds me to a degree, that the Treasury Bench seem incapable——

§ Mr. Manuel
The hon. Member has said that before.

§ Mr. Wells
The Treasury Bench seem incapable——

§ Mr. Manuel
The hon. Member has said that before. Tedious repetition.

§ Mr. Wells
The Treasury Bench seem incapable of telling us what is in their mind.

§ Mr. Albert Murray (Gravesend)
We know what is in the hon. Member's mind.

§ Mr. Wells
The hon. Member seems to know what is in my mind. Tonight I am directing my mind to trying to elicit from the Government their intentions under Clause 2. We want to know what they intend to do to clear up the uncertainty which Clause 2 puts off for one further year. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) four years ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "A good man."] A very good man. In Committee on the—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Wells
The hon. Member for Craigton, on 6th June, 1962, in Standing Committee E, as reported in column 1128 and subsequent columns with which I shall not weary the House—[Interruption.] The trouble with the junior Minister of the Board of Trade who has responsibility for the boat building industry is that he seems to think that I am seeking to mount some exercise and waste the time of the House. He is completely mistaken. If instead of cheering himself on with inane "Hear, hears" he would seek to protect that industry for which he is responsible——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the point he is seeking to make.

§ Mr. Wells
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make a very short point and hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not seem capable of realising that this is a serious matter. They seem to think that it is a funny joke. There are many people in the country who have the well-being of British waterways at heart. Clause 2 of the Bill perpetuates for one further year the uncertainty under which all users of British waterways labour.
It is not only private citizens, but a sub-Government Department—the Rural Industries Loan Fund—which in the past two or three years has set up modest sums of public money to assist the inland waterways industry, and they are in a state of uncertainty. The right hon. Lady has seemed to think that she can promise a White Paper and yet not produce it. She is asking us to give a blank cheque for a very large sum and asking us to consider that this uncertainty created by Clause 2 should go on for a further year. We on this side of the House want to 227 know quite clearly where the Government stand on this. She is aware that a large body of people would like to see the non-profit-making waterways hived off into a separate trust or some similar body. Furthermore, she is aware from the report produced last December, called "The Facts About the Waterways," that it is necessary to provide only about £1 million a year to keep the waterways going. If instead of the miserable Clause 2, she would say categorically that the Government will keep the waterways going, this would clear up a great deal of uncertainty and assist many people to know where they stand.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is now asking for something which is outside the Bill. He cannot do that on Third Reading.

§ Mr. Wells
It was for this reason that I expressed the hope that the White Paper would be introduced before the Committee stage. I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will try to keep within Clause 2, but the fact remains that we should like this point cleared up and it must be within the competence of the Minister and her two Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to do so tonight.
I will leave the waterways for a minute and turn to the commuter services, which affect so many of us, and the services of British Rail to the West Country, about which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) spoke so eloquently on Second Reading. Unfortunately, we seem to have had no representative of the Liberal Party here during Committee stage today or Third Reading. The commuter services which affect many constituencies are in grave danger and we should like a further explanation of what the Government intend to do. They are asking for a blank cheque for the expenditure of a large sum of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said on Second Reading, we should much rather have been asked for a sum year by year or period by period. A new look at the commuter services is badly needed. I hope that the Minister will do what she can to provide this within the foreseeable future.

§ Sir D. Glover
It will no doubt be within the recollection of the House that this is the second speech which I have made on the Bill, largely by the courtesy of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who, if he is speaking on transport, should realise that in a transport system time-keeping is the essence. If he had moved out of the station at the right time there would not have been time for another train to pull in. I have no apology to make to the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must come to the Bill.

§ Sir D. Glover
I had hoped that the House would allow me that explanation, but I will come to the Bill and I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. Indeed, I go a long way with the right hon. Lady in certain aspects of what she said in her speech. For instance, in 1954, which is a long time ago, speaking on transport, I said that there was a long future for the commuter services. When the Conservative Party were in power I always opposed any proposals to close down commuter services, because I have always appreciated that with the growth of the traffic problem the commuter services were an essential part of our transport system. But I cannot take the same attitude on liner trains, which I also advocated in my speech in 1954. We still have not got them operating. I am quite certain that if we are to have an efficient transport system it is essential that we get liner trains operating, taking in all freight, no matter who brings it along, and that it should not be restricted to British Road Services.
My criticism of this Bill is far more fundamental, and if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few words to the newer Members of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are debating a Bill which is giving the Government the right to lend £350 million to British Railways—Z—

§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason)
The hon. Member is not supposed to speak directly to hon. Members.

§ Sir D. Glover
I said that I wished to address them through Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member, who appears to be 229 sunk without trace, is unable to rise in his place to make his interjections, it will not be many moments before Mr. Speaker calls him to order.
We are dealing with a Bill which gives the Government the right to lend £350 million. I am not for one moment suggesting that the right hon. Lady will not be dealing with a deficit up to 1968. I am not criticising the suggestion that there is some need for a Bill to give her the power to lend British Railways some money. If the present plan for British Transport was to run on unchanged, I would not oppose the Bill. But the right hon. Lady has already made it quite clear to the House that not in months, but almost in hours—at the very longest, days—she is going to bring to the House a White Paper. That White Paper will presumably have in it proposals for a somewhat drastic alteration of the present system of transport.
We could pass tonight, I think without any opposition, a Bill giving the right hon. Lady the authority to lend British Railways £60 million or £70 million to cover the deficit to the end of this year. This is all the urgency at the moment. But, in fact, what we are being asked to do is to sanction a borrowing power which the right hon. Lady says is in excess of anything which she visualises British Railways will need. But then, this money, having been voted by the House, is going to be used for policies of which the House at the moment is quite unaware.
Of course, it is very difficult when speaking from the Opposition benches, as many hon. Members on the other side have found for many weary hours, and as many of them will find for many weary years before they cease to be Members, to impress the Government that it is part of the duty of the House of Commons—I would have thought it was its fundamental duty—not to give the Executive the power to do things without proper debate in the House. The House of Commons is governed largely by precedent, and in this Bill we are creating a precedent which will be quoted against hon. Members by my Government when it is in power——

§ Mr. Mason
When.

§ Sir D. Glover
—when it is in power. It will be said that in 1966 the House of Commons did a certain thing which 230 established this precedent, and then hon. Members opposite will realise that they at that moment of time were not acting as they ought to have done as hon. Members of this House. They are giving the Executive the power to use funds knowing that there is going to be a vast change in their policy towards transport, but knowing equally well that the Government having been voted that money, the House of Commons will have far less control over the Executive than they would if the Bill had not been proceeded with until the White Paper had been produced.
I do not criticise the right hon. Lady for this Bill, though it provides for the borrowing of more than is necessary in present circumstances. I do not criticise her for intending to bring in a White Paper which, no doubt, I shall not approve. That is a perfectly ordinary and understandable part of the process of Parliamentary Government. I do not base my criticism on my expectation that the White Paper will contain plans which I shall regard as ill considered and detrimental to the national interest. Hon. Members opposite, no doubt, at least officially, will say that those plans are wise, forward looking and good for British transport. But that is not the issue here.
When a Government have decided to alter their policy in regard to a large sector of our national life and intend to put controversial proposals before the House, it is not democratic to bring in at this stage a Bill to provide for borrowing powers to the tune of £350 million which will inevitably reduce the power of the House to influence the Government. I do not expect to carry hon. Members with me into the Lobby at this time of night, but they should realise that, when they have given the Bill a Third Reading and empowered the Executive to do certain things, they will have done something, quite unwittingly, to reduce the prestige and power of the House of Commons to control the Executive, be it a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Executive.
The Government are asking the House to give them a rubber stamp for £290 million—I accept that they need £60 million immediately—and if hereafter their proposals for British Rail are contrary to the views of hon. Members 231 opposite, hon. Members will find that they can do nothing about it because they will already have voted the money. They will have voted the Government a blank cheque. Hon. Members opposite hope that they will be able to support the White Paper proposals when they come, but they may find that they cannot. They will have no power to influence the Executive at that stage. This is the issue, and, if we pass the Bill now, the House of Commons will once again have reduced its power and ability to control the Executive, whether that Executive be of the Left or the Right.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
It is most encouraging to witness the increasing interest in the Bill shown by hon. Members opposite as evidenced by their much greater attendance in the Chamber on this occasion than hitherto.
At this late hour, I shall confine myself to putting certain questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. Do the calculations which have been given during the debate still stand, having regard to decisions which have been taken or which are later to be taken? It is reported that there is likely to be a pay rise of 61 per cent. for people employed on the buses. Do the calculations given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about deficits in London Transport of £5 million and £51 million for the two years thereafter take this into account, or will this basically alter the calculation?
Also, was the original estimate about the amount required worked out on the basis that liner trains would be operating on an increasing scale and the terminals would be made fully available to private hauliers? If the calculation was made on this basis and the position of the National Union of Railway men is to continue, the figures will be very different.
Finally, I would add one basic comment on the Bill and our attitude to it. From the very beginning of the debates on it we have argued that it was wrong for the Government to ask for sufficient money to finance what looks to be an increasing deficit for a period of two and a half years. There has never been a debate on a Bill where more questions have remained unanswered, and they have 232 remained unanswered basically because the Government are about to announce their new transport policy and are unwilling to give any details of it before the publication of the White Paper.
Hon. Members opposite may be correct in believing that the Government are very wise in not publishing or leaking information before publication of the White Paper, but they are wrong if they feel that it is wise to seek to obtain from the House £366 million to finance a transport policy which may well be changed within three weeks without the House knowing what that change will be. It is a thoroughly irresponsible policy. If we find in a few weeks' time that the House has been misled by the Government asking for this enormous sum of money for two and a half years in order to pursue very different policies from those being embarked on at the present time, we shall certainly move the strongest possible censure on the Minister for having so misled the House.
We regret that our Amendment on Second Reading was not accepted. It would have given all the money required for the continuation of the present policy with British Railways and enabled the House to make a proper judgment as to whether it was right to vote future sums. As that Amendment was not accepted, we have to accept the Third Reading because British Railways could not otherwise continue throughout the rest of this year. But we do so with the gravest suspicion, and the statement made on Friday on the subject of liner trains adds to our suspicion about what is likely to happen to the money. It is with regret that we cannot fully debate what is behind the request for this money because of lack of information given to the House. However, I should be grateful if at least the two small items of information that I have requested could be made available by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

§ Mr. John Morris
At this late hour I will try very briefly to answer the points that have been put during the debate.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) first asked whether the calculations about London Transport included some pay rises. They took probable pay rises into account.
233 Secondly, he asked whether the proportionate use of the liner trains was taken into account. I have indicated a substantial increase in the use of liner trains. The figure of 30 per cent. was given in February, but when I answered a Question a fortnight ago it was 66 per cent. With regard to the computation of the total of £800 million, to which we are referring—that is a round sum allowing or a safety margin—the liner trains make no significant difference. We calculated that sufficient margin should be allowed to British Railways to operate for the next two-and-a-half years so that it would not be necessary to come back to the House for the purpose of getting finance.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) used strong language, including the word "disgrace". He dug a pit for himself in that he made great play of Clause 2. I am sorry that it was not possible for me in my Second Reading speech to reply to some of the points he had made during the debate. Had I been able to do so, I would have old him again that this is a stop-gap Bill for the waterways and that we hope, in our White Paper, to publish some of our proposals for the waterways. Certainly no discourtesy to him was intended. But had the hon. Gentleman been here on Friday and raised these matters on Clause 1, there would have been ample opportunity to discuss them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) told us that when he first saw the Bill he looked reasonably upon it. I therefore searched the Division Lists to find out how he behaved on Thursday night, but he did not, in fact, vote on the Opposition Amendment. He was not with his comrades in arms. I do not want to do him an injustice, but I must point out that only a few minutes earlier he had voted on the previous issue before the House. I suppose that some ideological difference arose in that he was able to be with his colleagues in the first Division but not in the second, which concerned this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman may have been present during Wednesday's debate, but lie was not here for the full and comprehensive discussion we had on Friday.
234 Had he been present, he would have realised that, as we have said on a number of occasions, this is a stop-gap Bill. Tonight, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the socially essential purposes would be paid for in the Bill and what we intended to do about financing these things. If he understands the purpose of the Measure, he will see that we are merely financing British Railways' existing statutory obligations. The Bill is necessary as a stop-gap measure to pro. vide British Railways with finance while we are bringing our policy before the House, first in a White Paper and then in legislation which will come into effect in 1968. That is the time scale that will operate under the provisions of the Bill and that is why it is so necessary.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) also had protests to make. He is not present now and certainly was not present on Friday. Had he been present then, he could have raised many of these points about the waterways. I hope that, when we debate the White Paper, he will be able to be present. We shall be grateful if he is.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made a long and interesting speech. I have heard him in different guises. When I first entered the House he was sitting below the gangway on the Government benches, always in furious indignation against the nationalised industries. Then, at the Ministry of Power, he was engaged in bringing in Bills and Orders for borrowing powers to seek more money for them. As he is not now with us, however, he will not accuse me of discourtesy if I do not reply to the points he made in his speech tonight.